502. BunEBear - March 5, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
"But why doesn't it also change the local sense of top and bottom?"
This is why it is a question of definitions. How do you define the local sense of top and bottom, other than top is the head direction and bottom is the foot direction? Once you have defined top/bottom, and in/out, then if we impose our own handedness on the image coordinate system, the local definition of Left/Right has to change (because we have flipped in/out). This is where FTC's hint might come in. If we put a bag on one hand and call that direction the baghand direction, then define up/down relative to in/out and baghand/nobaghand, then we would be forced to conclude that up/down has reversed. We don't like that convention much, because we do not posses up/down symetry (while we do possess approximate left/right symetry). I.e we are willing to accept that baghand has changed from left to right more easily than that our head has changed from up to down.
503. BunEBear - March 5, 1999 - 10:15 AM PT
Of course this still isn't philosophy, is it? Although Kant evidently based his belief in absolute space partially on an argument based on left and right. Something along the lines of, since you can't translate a left hand into a right hand, space must not depend simply on relations but must be absolute. (Or something like that). I could dredge up a reference if anyone is interested.
504. elliot803 - March 5, 1999 - 10:21 AM PT
BunEBear:
Yes, I think you've answered it. The key to the apparent discrepancy is the vertical axis symmetry of the human body, which causes us to project ourselves on to our mirror image more easily along the vertical axis than along the horizontal one. In truth, the mirror image is no more like a real human being than one in which the head is at the bottom and the feet at the top. In the mirror image, even the direction of the helix turn in the DNA molecules would be reversed!
505. FreeToChoose - March 5, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
Yes.
The vertical symmetry (caused in part by gravity) fools us into thinking that the mirror reverses left and right.
In fact, it reverses front and back (or in and out in Bunebear terms)
Anyone interested might want to pick up:
Ambidextrous Universe
Synopsis
Martin Gardner takes an entertaining look at one of man's most puzzling questions: Is the universe
symmetrical? This book is a popular survey of mirror symmetry (left vs. right) and asymmetry, and
the significant roles they play in such diverse fields as mathematics, physics, art, music, poetry, and
more!
Good question, Elliot
506. BTerry - March 5, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
elliot803, Re Message #476:
I'd have to say that it's because the mirror doesn't reverse left/right or up/down. Rather, it reverses front/back.
507. BTerry - March 5, 1999 - 10:51 AM PT
BTerry, Re Message #506:
It appears you were too late.
508. FreeToChoose - March 5, 1999 - 1:17 PM PT
cool
Self-reference.
One of my favorite subjects.
509. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 1:27 PM PT
Elliot803
"The key to the apparent
discrepancy is the vertical axis symmetry of the human
body"
So let us assume a body (non-human!) with horisontal axis symmetry. What then?
510. ChristinO - March 5, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
You mean like a Flounder?
511. elliot803 - March 5, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
pellenillson:
It would be the same, except the question would be "Why does a mirror reverse top and bottom, but not left and right?"
512. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 1:48 PM PT
Elliot
Why don't you try it and see what happens?
513. ChristinO - March 5, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
It never reverses top and bottom because the apparent reversal is all in the eye of the beholder. Wherever the eye rests is top and since a mirror reflects back point to point top is always top.
514. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
re. self reference--ever read anything by Douglas Hofstadter, e.g., _Godel, Escher, Bach_?
515. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
he's also very into this recreation of consciousness & creativity on machines I think.
516. elliot803 - March 5, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
pelle:
Try what?
517. pellenilsson - March 5, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
elliot
Positioning an object of horisontal symmetry in front of a mirror.
518. FreeToChoose - March 5, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
Slackjaw
Of course.
One of my favorite books.
GED, the Eternal Golden Braid
519. FreeToChoose - March 5, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
well, you know what I meant.
520. BTerry - March 5, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
Slackjaw, Re Message #514:
The one with wishes, meta-wishes, and meta-meta-wishes? Oh yeah, and thinking ant colonies, too?
521. elliot803 - March 5, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
pelle:
What for? By "body" I assume you meant a sentient creature whose body had a horizontal axis of symmetry, and whose perception of the reversal would thus (presumably) be based on that symmetry. If you're talking about an inanimate object viewed by a human being, then it wouldn't make any difference.
522. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
well, here is a little story about ol' Doug. It might not be that interesting but I'll tell it anyway. (I may have told it before when I first entered the Fray about a year and a half ago.)
Hofstadter is a professor at Indiana University, where I did my undergraduate studies, as did my wife. She was studying vocal performance and education (not vocal education, just education) and happened to be at some dog & pony show for undergrad education majors...the physics fair or something, where they trot out a bunch of 8 year olds and roll some balls down an incline. The local newspaper was on hand, and snapped a photo of her for the next day's edition. So here is this beautiful blonde woman, if I do say so myself, who happened at the time to have a very Italian last name, pictured with a bunch of giddy 8 year olds, teaching them about physics, and listed in the caption as a student in the very prestigious IU school of music.
Next day, she gets a phone call one Douglas R. Hofstadter. He wants to take her to dinner! I was a sophomore at the time and she a junior--neither of us had a clue as to the identity this Hofstadter fellow. Frankly, she was a little skeptical..."oh, you're a PROFESSOR no less? Oh really, I see. How nice!"...and declined the dinner invitation. How about lunch? No, thank you. Coffee? No, she tells him she is in a relationship, but thanks anyway. Hofstadter, being a polite and politically correct man, says that it wasn't NECESSARILY a proposition and he'd like to lunch with the both of us.
Being a couple of rubish Hoosiers of combined age 39, we take him up on it. I still don't know who he is, but what the heck? Well, I ask around a little and find out just exactly what his bona fides are...Pulitzer prize winner, Scientific American writer, all around genius. Cool! This will be a good lunch after all!
(cont.)
523. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
We get to lunch and I want to talk to him all about this really enthralling subject I have recently discovered called game theory...HE wants to talk about how he speaks only Italian in his home to his children, about how he loves Italian culture, about how he loves vocal performers and would love for his young daughter to learn, about how he has a Ph.D. in physics, about how his kids really need a nanny and they seem to prefer blonde women, and about how interested he is for various reasons in finding a mate.
Suddenly his lack of interest in our lunch excursion becomes clear. We make uncomfortable chit chat for a few minutes, and part ways. He politely lied about how much he enjoyed the lunch, and proclaims that he'd like to do it again soon.
Naturally, we never heard from him again. Oh well, he didn't appear to know much game theory anyway.
524. elliot803 - March 5, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
slackjaw:
That's kind of a sad story. He sounds like a bit of a jerk. But I love his books (or at least GEB and "The Mind's I").
525. ChristinO - March 5, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT
Well, yeah, I suppose he's a bit of a jerk, but I laughed. Particularly when I imagined the boyish look of disappointment on Slack's face when Hofstadter didn't want to talk about game theory.
526. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 3:21 PM PT
oh no, he was very polite. In retrospect it was obvious that I still really had no idea who he was, and he didn't demand any ring kissing at all. He entertained all my ignorant questions about math...I was still only 19, fresh off a high school career in which I averaged more than one "D" per year in math classes and actually achieved an "F" once.
He did seem melancholy, but like a generally happy man who happened to be a little sad at the moment.
yeah, great books though.
527. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 3:23 PM PT
I was foncused, actually. I had heard he wrote some pieces on game theory but he appeared not to be familiar with basic developments that one learns in a class on game theory for 19 year olds.
528. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 3:24 PM PT
"foncused"
Speaking of which...
make that confused
529. ChristinO - March 5, 1999 - 3:45 PM PT
Whew!
Here I was wondering if it was some strange economic term.
530. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
Slackjaw:
Game theory? Meta, meta, meta?. I should check in on the philosophy thread more often. Have you explained the term to all the nice people -- a game played between two absolutely intelligent and absolutely ruthless opponents. Even between two players the theory becomes rather involved. Add more players and it becomes impossible.
531. chloel - March 5, 1999 - 4:11 PM PT
One of Hofstadter's recent books - _Le Ton Beau_ - is largely about translation and the death of his wife; I assume she died sometime before this lunch, but not long before if the children were young, so perhaps he's usually more balanced.
How astoundingly anachronistic an invitation; simultaneous talk of needing a nanny and needing a mate! At least he didn't say your SO was "made for labor, not for love".
532. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 4:13 PM PT
How does one begin? What are the basic tenets? The basic concepts? I haven't checked back more than 10 messages. I will do so now.
533. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 4:26 PM PT
uzmakk:
a game is any situation in which several goal-seeking individuals must each make a decision, and the best decision from one player's point of view depends on the decisions made by the others. Covers situations from Connect-4 and Chess to competition between oligopolists to Congressional choice of institutions to control bureaucracy.
"Even between two players the theory becomes rather involved. Add more players and it becomes impossible." I presume you mean impossible in the sense of "hard if you can't sit still for a few minutes" as opposed to "impossible." Or you have learned game theory by reading von Neumann & Morgenstern. An n-player game in normal form is quite trivial. Here's some n-person game theory: All finite games in normal form have a Nash equilibrium in pure or mixed strategies.
"a game played between two absolutely intelligent and absolutely ruthless opponents." Not necessarily, on both counts. My meal ticket this year is games between players who make errors, know that the other players make errors, and account for those errors in an intelligent way. Bounded and procedural rationality in game theory is hot.
Nothing about game theory precludes other-regarding preferences.
Players need not even be construed as "opponents." In noncooperative game theory, they must simply not be able to make binding agreements to play one available strategy rather than another. Incentives to play a strategy over another must arise within the game itself (this doesn't mean things like legal constraints can't be represented--that's an issue of how one models the strategy space). Cooperative game theory doesn't require an opponent interpretation either, but binding agreements can be made.
534. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
"An n-player game in normal form is quite trivial" should read
"An n-player game in normal form is quite trivial to analyze via Nash equilibrium."
535. uzmakk - March 5, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
Extremely cool, Slackjaw. Actually, I learned "about" Game Theory by reading "about" VonNeumann and Morgenstern. So, I cannot say that I know or that I can do Game Theory.
So you are a mathemetician? Your meal ticket and all.
536. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
Aha. von Neumann-Morgenstern is a mess. In a dense and abstruse 700 page book, they made essentially no headway past non-zero sum games with more than two players (though n-person zero sum games are fully treated). John Nash, several years later, wrote two papers totalling about 12 pages that rendered non-zero sum n person games of complete information tractable. He shared the Nobel Prize in economics in 1994.
economist, not mathemetician. Economist of sorts, anyway. I steer clear of macro entirely. I'm a Ph.D. student, and I'm working in a lab for the next year (at least) where the focus is games between these error prone players. Experimental tests, applications, etc.
537. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 5:10 PM PT
no, not "etc." Tests and applications. Like to jury decision making. Who knew?
Story re. John Nash, told to me by a first hand participant--
As is widely known, shortly after a series of seminal little articles in the '50s in which he single handedly reshaped both cooperative and noncooperative game theory, Nash slipped into dementia. He left Princeton and travelled Europe incognito on the belief that the CIA wanted him dead.
In the early '90s he began to return to lucidity, and resumed residence at Princeton. In 1995 at a game theory conference, a banquet was held in his honor. He sat next to Roger Myerson, a younger and eminent game theorist, who was talking to Nash about the endurance of Nash equilibrium. The reason he offered for this was its endurance--it could be used to illuminate everything from nuclear deterrence to auctions.
Nash looked puzzled and asked, "What in the world does Nash equilibrium have to do with auctions?!"
538. Slackjaw - March 5, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
E gads
"The reason he offered for this was its endurance" should end with "flexibility."
539. Raskolnikov - March 5, 1999 - 9:26 PM PT
I heard a Nash story (possibly Apocryphal) that during a mathematics course for underclassmen, the class began asking him about infinity. He became annoyed, said "I'll show you what infinity is" and began drawing a line on the chalkboard. When he reached the end of the chalkboard, he continued drawing on the wall. When he reached the door, he left the room, and didn't come back. After about 15 minutes, the TA dismissed class.
540. uzmakk - March 6, 1999 - 9:23 AM PT
I enjoy these personal stories. I had an extraordinary mathematics teacher in high school, Stanley Cracovia. The Nash story reminds be of him.
541. uzmakk - March 9, 1999 - 4:58 PM PT
PHILOSOPHY IS DEAD.
LONG LIVE PHILOSOPHY!
542. uzmakk - March 9, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
So, what do the words "Mathematical Metaphor" mean to you?
543. DanDillon - March 11, 1999 - 5:41 AM PT
I arrived in Paris with a certain number of socks. When Dave and Kate came to visit, they brought me a ceratin number more. After they brought those extra socks, I did laundry. And in doing so, I lost one of the supplemental socks--that is to say, one of those brought by Dave and Kate.
So my question is this: would I have lost a sock no matter what? Or would I have the same number of socks I originally arrived with had Dave and Kate not brought the extra socks? In other words, did the fact that the extra socks were brought facilitate the losing of one of my socks at the laundrette?
544. uzmakk - March 11, 1999 - 6:02 AM PT
We have no way of knowing, do we?
545. uzmakk - March 11, 1999 - 7:11 AM PT
Or, the more socks the higher the probability of loosing one.
546. DanDillon - March 11, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
Who ever said philosophy was dead?!
547. uzmakk - March 11, 1999 - 8:06 AM PT
LONG LIVE PHILOSOPHY!
548. uclapolisci - March 11, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
My god this is an entertaining thread... Good morning, my name is Jonathan Eells, a doctoral student of political science at UCLA (that's Lost Angeles to you). I spent yesterday and this morning reading through the thread to date, and my, aren't there some characters here! They know who they are. Being the cheap bastard that I am, I of course am not paying for the subscription to this site, which is a forward explanation for how a uclapolisci posting is not necessarily mine everytime... (the library is good enough to pay our fee, the sweethearts).
Regarding game theory beyond two person games, may I refer everyone's attention to a fascinating site of some interest to me? Check out adaptive agent simulation under Research at the Santa Fe Institute. Maybe it'll tickle your gaming bone.
549. Msivorytower - March 11, 1999 - 10:32 AM PT
uclapolisci!
Damn, but I knew you were from there as soon as I saw the name. Instant attraction on my part because I went to that fine institution as an undergrad (many moons ago) and one of my majors was political science!
I lived in Echo Park, btw, when I went there. I called it a family oriented ghetto, but I did enjoy the atmosphere at the time. I've no idea what Echo Park is like these days.
So, there will be multiple posters using that ID?
What is your area of specialization within the field?
550. uclapolisci - March 11, 1999 - 6:41 PM PT
Hey Ms.! Nice to make your acquaintance! I haven't gotten to know Echo Park yet. We moved here from Wyoming and have gotten to know very little besides Culver City and campus, and a few spots in between.
My specialties are int'l relations and computational modeling, but I come from a philosophy (ancient through anytime period political) background, and am linking the three as best I can. A bit of Hume, etc. Actually the "specialties" are mere nominal conveniences, since I seem to swiping ideas from everywhere lately.
Philosophically speaking, would you care to be the first one to help me figure out if there is any qualitative truth difference between positing the necessity of a "first cause" (as was happening a few postings ago) and simply asserting that there never was, and need not have been, any first cause of anything at all (i.e. "it's always just been here"). They seem to me to be competing faith claims. That should start a friendly round, eh?
As for the posting name (this is Jonathan), the uclapolisci name is not "mine", but rather is a subscription paid for by the library, so anybody in polisci could use it if they so choose. You never know who could be at the end of this moniker!
Yours,
The real Jonathan
551. ScottLoar - March 11, 1999 - 7:01 PM PT
The Real Jonathon, so your specialty is international relations? If you've a mind mosey on over to the International Thread and see if that strikes your fancy. Read the last several hundred posts.
552. Slackjaw - March 11, 1999 - 7:26 PM PT
UCLA/Jonathan:
Hi! I'm at Caltech--one of my fields is formal theory.
Have you been to the SFI summer workshop?
553. Msivorytower - March 11, 1999 - 7:30 PM PT
Jonathan meet Slackjaw.
I was waiting for him to show up, you two have a lot in common it seems.
554. uzmakk - March 12, 1999 - 3:46 AM PT
Johnathan:
I am Uzmakk of the steppe, or perhaps Uzmak the Uzbekh. I am fairly new here on the Fray. I am unpolished. I am a nomad with little formal education, but find that there is much to admire here on the Fray. I am studying the techniques of Pseudoerasmus and others whom I admire so that I too may come crashing in off an optical fiber into the middle of a muddy "conversation" , banish fools and educate the educable.
With regard to your question -- Fuck the First Cause.
555. uzmakk - March 12, 1999 - 8:20 AM PT
You know, I just think I have a philosophical nature. After all, 20-25 years ago as a young nipper I took out the following advertisement in Harper's classifieds--
__________________________________________
Undifferentiated psychoplasmic monads needed for
ORGANIZATION
CORTEX (Common Organ for Requiste Thought Expansion)
(address)
_____________________________________________
556. pellenilsson - March 12, 1999 - 11:23 AM PT
Uzmakk Uzbekhian
You're good. Damned good (for a youngster).
Now whip out Graves and check him out against Harper's description of Wicca. When I read her I got some kind of grip on the issue. We live quite near a small national park. It's a forest that has never been exploited commercially which is a very rare thing in this part of Sweden.
There, in the short summer nights of Scandinavia, when the light fades at 11 p.m. and returns at 2 a.m., people gather to watch a play enacted. It involves fleeting, mysterious appearances of the "peoples of the forest". Good ones like the elves but also more sinister characters like trolls and the female who seduces the traveller to follow her, but, when she turns around, shows a hollowed-out back. All, however, is eventually set to right by the Queen of the Forest.
I suspect this is Wecca (or some variant). But is there any connection to Grave's White Godess?
557. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 11:24 AM PT
Slack, Uz, good morning! Hello again Ms! And Scott, thanks for the suggestion. At the onset of the IR thread I was a little disappointed, although I perked up around the 13,500 mark... The Swedish history was really good history. The occasional IR thought would creep in. Nice reading - thanks for the encouragement.
Slack, are you coming down for the end of the month Swarmfest '99 here at Camp UCLA? It ought to be fun. I haven't made it to an SFI Summer yet, but it's only a matter of time (I hope). Formal theory's got to keep you hopping... what else do you spend your time on?
And the obligatory philosophical thought, being as this is a philosophy thread and all... So, no takers on the First Cause claptrap... well and good, since it was a red herring. Assignment of causation is all in our heads anyway. I am interested though in people's ideas concerning onjectivity? Is there anything that is NOT subjective? I usually argue that all social "facts" are constructed, regardless of context or content. There's even some room for claiming that formal scientific "facts" are merely representational, but that's not an important argument for philosophy anymore I don't think.
What do you all say?
- JWE
558. pellenilsson - March 12, 1999 - 11:25 AM PT
uzmakk
It just dawned on me that I posted my last in the wrong thread. never mind.
559. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 11:27 AM PT
Uklapolski: The international thread these days is just a cosmopolitan chat room, but it used to have more stuff which might interest an IR theorist. See archives.
560. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 11:32 AM PT
"Assignment of causation is all in our heads anyway."
So in your opinion facts can never dictate the "assignment" of causation, or at least limit the ways in which it gets assigned?
"Is there anything that is NOT subjective? I usually argue that all social 'facts' are constructed, regardless of context or content."
I think this is another red herring. It all depends on what you mean by "objective". Do you mean it in the sense of "intersubjectively testable"? I think that's all most people mean today. And since there are subjective things which are not intersubjectively testable, so the answer to your question is yes, there are things which are not subjective.
561. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
uklapolski sounds like yet another PoMo head.
562. Raskolnikov - March 12, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
The hazing has begun.
563. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 12:20 PM PT
Ah yes, I knew Pseudo would arrive, and thank you for your engaging circularity, which I enjoyed reading by way of a mutual introduction. Nice to make your acquaintance after having read you at length here and elsewhere.
This whole intersubjectivity thing has reached the nauseating level of truism, and so I will acknowledge that yes, it was just another red herring, intended to draw you out. But now I've done that, and can move on. Oh, but a last thing, insofar as a "fact" is post-hoc assigned to a causal process, the fact is itself usually just a convenient vector that summarizes most of what went on. No problems there, and I'm usually happy enough to leave it at that.
But the above leads me to a different point: philosophy (in the spirit of "is it dead, or just resting...") used to wonder about what cause actually means, but we've reached a point where complexity sciences have revealed a bit more of the systematic uncertainty involved in assigning causality relationships... (in other words, vector summaries don't cut it anymore). Philosophy journal articles beginning at the turn of the century and throughout the early post WWII period seem to indicate a growing interest in finding out how the individual members of a system, say like in international relations, produce the conditions in which they operate. They asked questions like, "Is there a system-level structure here?", or "Do the individual agents constitute the system as a product of their anarchic interactions?" Questions like the latter introduce the concept of perpetual novelty (since agents change, and thus the system changes) into discussions of causality, and the question evolves into one that seems more concerned with how to properly specify a system and (hey Slack, watch this...) furthermore how to model its iterations over time to better understand its potential for adaptive behavior.
564. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 12:21 PM PT
Now, the modeling part only came around since the small, cheap computer made its entree. I think that what used to seem mystical or normative (what makes a group of people do one thing rather than another thing) is now just another constructivist social problem looking for a properly specified model. But the philosophical grounding remains to be done... how does philosophy talk about anarchic systems, and (as a first cut at the question) the attendant role of norms, teleology, or any other of the other moral -ologies, when we have a Humean system of passions (mass behavior) dictating to reason?
-JWE
PS Raskol... remind me someday to e-mail you my favorite, first hand account of fraternity hazing when I was an undergraduate (from the recipient's, i.e. my, point of view)
565. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 1:14 PM PT
uklapolski: My God, you do belong at the Santa Fe Institute.
But I don't quite understand how, in your description, complex systems or emergent systems reveal the "systematic uncertainty in assigning casuality". When you specify a model with iterations over time, you are positing causality, at least you're pretending to.
566. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
Initial conditions in an autocatalytic process may not be known at all and don't usually matter to the actual modelling process. Yet the model still implies causal relations, and causal vectors.
567. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Systematic uncertainty stems from recognizing that, were I so bold as to assign exhaustive causal power (which I wouldn't do anyway but never mind that for a minute) to one "fact", or to even a set of facts, I can never be certain that I haven't instead identified some epiphenomenon/a related to the "true" (because we know they're out there...) set of causes - or at least, I've just gotten my hands on a minor of the matrix of causes. That's why it's always easier, in the traditional methodology of the (my) discipline to pick the one vector that summarizes most of what we want to explain. Then we just "deal" with the noise (the error term). Multivariate analysis tries to get at it, but all you get is a smaller error term and still no accounting for novelty (or deviations, like the collapse of the USSR).
And as for positing causality (or pretending to do so), the philosophically troublesome (rather, "wanting for explanation") thing is that the models that the SFI types and myself are trying to build don't have unique, determined outcomes. That's to say, while we have an idea of what we're trying to describe, and are (in a way) reverse engineering our way into explaining how it might have come about, there's no guarantee that the "causes" we select will produce the effects that we are attemtping to model. That's the bugaboo about that epiphenomenal/matrix minor stuff I was just going on about.
Which is why I turn to this august assemblage. Rather than trying to awe you with my vast comprehension of the longitudes and latitudes, instead I kind of need a leg up. How does a philosophical discussion of "cause" in a complexified universe begin to make sense of things like process, procession, etc?
So back to the philosophical wrangle... how does philosophy intend to discuss the matter of multiple, proximate causes producing multiple, indeterminate, probabilistic results?
-JWE
568. MrSocko - March 12, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
Oh hi, uclapolisci. I might as well introduce myself too. Am currently finishing my thesis at Tonga's Hebrew U here in the South Pacific. My specialty is lexicography.
569. MrSocko - March 12, 1999 - 1:50 PM PT
My superviser is Dr. Lewis Fein, a professor of modern literature from Emory U.
570. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 1:56 PM PT
Pseudo and I simul-posted that last round, so I didn't have the benefit of his penultimate posting prior to writing my own, but the question still revolves around the resultans... which are indeterminate, multiple, and probabilistic. Then there's the mess about when the real result simply falls outside of the model that has been created. That discussion usually has the following punchline: "What's up with THAT!?" For a real world example, track down that Anasazi modeling project. Those guys can figure out that, sure, a precipitous drop in population ocurred, but why did the Anasazi simply vanish?
-JWE
571. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 2:00 PM PT
Hi, Socko! Any relation to Johnny Socko and His Flying Robot? I used to rush home from the academy as a boy to watch that show - loved it!
-JWE
572. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
"...how does philosophy intend to discuss the matter of multiple, proximate causes producing multiple, indeterminate, probabilistic results?"
After all that verbiage, you now get to the point! If that's all you mean, you don't need all that portenous stuff about complexity and adaptive systems and the like. The question above seems to me just a more elaborate version of the kind of stuff that's been bandied about since the 1920s, with probabilistic results in quantum mechanics and all that. All such questions as yours do is take us back to the old issue of what "cause" actually means. Personally, I've never quite understood why some people insist that determinism and foreknowledge are required for causality.
573. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 2:22 PM PT
Message #570
You're beginning to sound flakey.
Surely serious people don't try to create models in which the collapse of the Soviet Union is one of many possible outcomes. Rather the process of explanation is to "reverse engineer" (as you put it) some given result. The same with the disappearnace of the "Anasazi".
Which reminds me. The mother of all "reverse engineering" explanations is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel".
574. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 4:08 PM PT
Well, at least when I present my findings to the King of Sweden's committee I'll be able to say with all sincereity that I gave you a shot at it, Pseudo. Thanks for giving it your best effort. Best wishes.
In parting,
-JWE
575. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 4:13 PM PT
uklapolski: you could actually just tell us more about your research, rather than try to relate it to some contrived philosophical problem.
576. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 8:46 PM PT
Ahh, yes, Pseudo. I am well-prepared to discuss my specific research, but given the conceit of this thread I was in the hunt to practice the dying art ("no, no, it's just resting...") of philosophical enquiry. You were close to getting the philosophical nub of the question in #572, but you abandoned the effort in favor of a typical anchor to something about which you are more comfortable opining. Back to the journals for you, Pseudo!
Granted, many philosophical problems come out seeming "contrived", but then that's half the fun, I think. Or put another way, what isn't contrived? The last raft of optimization problems I ran for my research didn't exactly strike me as intuitive...
To pull out the soapbox now with abandon, why shouldn't I demand that you hold your feet to the fire of contrived, strenuous, and apparently bothersome (to you) philosophical investigation? You should be forced to examine the methods that you use to generate knowledge - all of us are bound in that obligation. (And he puts the soapbox away...)
Now about my research... I don't have the slightest hope of authoring something as interesting or as comprehensive as Pellenilsson's wonderful Swedish history off the cuff. I'll figure out some way to give you access to my work later. But for giggles, you might want to read some of what I myself am reading; perhaps it will open your mind to the same questions with which I am struggling (an academic objective correlative of the T.S. Elliot variety...). Go to JSTOR - Electronic Journal Storage and look up Michael W. Macy. I'll be interested in (not just) your reaction.
-JWE
577. uclapolisci - March 12, 1999 - 9:35 PM PT
PS: Pseudo, I realize I wasn't giving you enough of a chance (following Sun Tzu's advice on how to deal with cornered opponents) to show off your prodigious powers of analysis... so here's the kind of question I want answered. The emphasis is, naturally, on "causes".
"What causes nations to align?"
Give a thoughtful response, hmm?
-JWE
578. AzureNW - March 12, 1999 - 9:40 PM PT
Hi, UCLA.
One of the very best experiences in my life was visiting your campus and exploring your libraries as a child. I was eight or nine years old.
579. Pseudoerasmus - March 12, 1999 - 9:42 PM PT
Uklapolski: Nice soliloquy.
I'm in (macro)economics, not philosophy or political science.
"What causes nations to align?"
Mutual interests? That answer seems to fit history pretty well. Never thought it required a more complicated response.
580. pellenilsson - March 13, 1999 - 12:52 AM PT
Why do I get this feeling that uclapolisci is a bunch of undergraduate kids trying to show off?
581. MrSocko - March 13, 1999 - 3:43 AM PT
"What causes nations to align?"
This very question has often been posed by Dr. Lewis Fein to my class at Tonga's Hebrew U. A satisfactory answer, alas, still remains beyond our ken.
Pray enlighten us, ucla!
582. uclapolisci - March 13, 1999 - 6:55 AM PT
Poor form, Pellenilsson, given our previously expressed admiration for your Swedish history. You'll have plenty of time to repent, however.
"Mutual interests" is about as naive an answer as I could have expected if in fact I were an undergraduate speaking to another. What possible sense of curiosity motivates one to answer a question with (as you did) "that's not my field..." And why do you not get the point Pseudo, that the whole point of a thematic thread is to stick to the rule... If I put the emphasis on "causes" and then ask a question "what causes alignment", your (rapidly diminishing, possibly non-extant) intellect should look beyond its knee-jerk response to ask the insightful question - perhaps, "what conditions produce mutual interests such that alignment is a fit response?" Gosh, think of the research avenues to be discovered by asking INTERESTING questions like THAT one.
The point of engaging in philosophical inquiry is to investigate the process of inquiry itself, not to trade pithy answers that one thinks "fit history pretty well". I am, however, bored with you. Good day.
-JWE
583. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 7:00 AM PT
UCLAPOLSCI:
Ah, Saturday morning, with several uninterupted hours on the Fray to look forward to. Will return here after I make an attempt to digest what has been said. Insight or heavily structured hogwash?(Does this perchance describe the Brody book, Pseudo?) I won't give up on UCLAPOLSCI. Those nascent ideas often sound a bit funny what with new concepts and a new langauge to describe them and all. I believe that is the standard line of defense for the UCLAPOLSCI type argument. I'm still listening. Make it clear, UCLA. The more that I think about it the more that I think UCLA might have something.
Q: "What causes nations to align?"
A: "Common Interests", need more be said?
Q: "What part of the amalgam called the nation decides what the nation's interests are?"
Q: "What are the known mechanisms by which a nation pursues its interests?"
Q: "What are the mechanisms or organs by which a nation perceives the world outside itself.? Ditto, the multinational corporation? "
Q: "Are they still viable?"
Q: "Is it useful to conceive societal mechanisms in terms of cybernetics and information theory?"
Q:" How does the personal computer fit into all of this, UCLAPOLSCI?"
Q: "Does Pseudo know what was going on in Chile under Allende?"
WRT the conceit exhibited on this thread. I would remind UPOLSCI that the tribe of fat-headed toads that live under this particular rock are always open to a good head shot. They are all open to a good stamping to death, or, perhaps a good pithing if only someone would do it. To carry on with the conceit theme, I don't think anyone here particularly gives a shit if you are going to present your thesis to the King of the Universe. Didn't you see the arrogance oozing out from under this rock before you picked it up? Come on under.
584. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
The atmosphere is positively invigorating.
God damn it! I expect Pseudo does know what was going on in Chile.
585. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 7:12 AM PT
Upolsci:
And don't give me that "You bore me. Good day." shit, UCLAchickenshit.
586. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
Uzmakk has been denied access to the sacred JSTOR site. Good thing too. The civilized world does not want to share its information with barbarians.
587. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 7:22 AM PT
I piss on JSTOR. My horse pisses on JSTOR.
588. pellenilsson - March 13, 1999 - 9:41 AM PT
UCLA
"Poor form, Pellenilsson, given our previously expressed admiration for your Swedish history. You'll have plenty of time to repent, however."
The usual, mutual back-scratching formula does not work in the Fray. And the "our" sort of gives the game away, doesn't it? Unless that Jonathan chap is into pluralis majestatis. But not even PE does that.
You ask: what causes alignment between nations? Answer: mutual interests. You ask: what causes mutual interest? Ridiculous. Keep at it and you are soon back to the first cause, where, if I remember correctly, you started.
589. pseudoerasmus - March 13, 1999 - 10:11 AM PT
"What conditions produce mutual interests such that alignment is a fit response?"
Well, naturally, the drinking of chlorinated water.
590. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 4:31 PM PT
UCLAPOLSCI:
Do not leave us yet. I expect a post on Monday from UCLAPOLSCI. BTW, I am disappointed to find out that the First Cause vs whatever the hell else there is(which is the school to which I find myself attached) was a red-herring. I stand strongly in the WhatevertheHellelsethereIs school and can therefore say emphatically "FUCK THE FIRST CAUSE"!!
591. uclapolisci - March 13, 1999 - 5:45 PM PT
Uzmakk's the only one of you so far with stones. He actually took a philosophical approach to the matter at hand. God, what a revolutionary among you!
Pseudopusillanimous and Peonilsson have about as much heft as a used dryer sheet. God help the world if they are responsible for the education of anyone's children. A correction: you're dealing with one person Peon, which is still more than you could possibly imagine handling. Try a real academic argument sometime instead of your well-trodden hackneyed tripe dredged up from your adolescent days (which you must still be re-living - good christ man, show some backbone).
Uzmakk, an apology: the first cause was a processive red herring - not important to the argument at the time, but a central feature nonetheless of some of my earliest work in political theory. I believe that most of what has gone wrong with political science method to date (track down James Fearon's "The Counterfactual Argument in Political Science" or some such title from 1990 or 1991) stems from a mispecification of causation, which I am fully prepared to explicate/defend/foist off on the unsuspecting.
Ahh, Peon, the second order question was not "what causes mutual interest" (a new prescription's in order for you obviously, unless it's just a short term memory condition you're showing...), but rather (abbrev.) "what conditions make alignment a fit response?" I refer you to Axelrod's recent book on cooperation. Try reading something.
Uzmakk's advice was the best to date. I should have taken heed of the foul stench emanating from under the rock before I entered. But now that I'm here, there's nothing to do but scrape my soiled boots off on the backs of the charlatans. Peon, as you read Axelrod's book, pay close attention to the model named TIT AND TAT. My goodnes yes, those two statements are related.
And now on to Uzmakk's questions in order...
592. uclapolisci - March 13, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
I'll pick up one question in particular of uzmakk's and ask whether it is useful anymore to perceive nations as possessing meaningful boundaries. In what sense is there an outside to a nation any longer? Personal experiences notwithstanding, there aren't many examples I can come up with where a modern nation is cut off from (choose your poison) contaminating, liberalizing, etc. ideologies.
The Macy articles I mentioned a while back provide a useful insight into how new ideas reach currency, or velocity, in a given situation. Macy coins the phrase "critical mass" to describe his model, and he does an excellent job of mathematically expressing the functions he examines. So let's assume that there is a way to describe how a previously exogenous idea enters a social structure, and takes over.
The computer enters into the picture at precisely the point where one wishes to model the dynamic "game" of how ideologies fare in competition with one another. Another paper by Axelrod and Cohen shows the pattern of iterated prisoner dilemma games played with varying strategies, and proves that some strategies win out more than others. Where the computer is helpful is of course by running the 200,000 or so games and outputting some meaningful data as a result.
One can consider the interaction of ideologies to be reasonably captured by the dynamic of the prisoner's dilemma, and so model defection and cooperation to mean "preserving belief" or "changing belief", respectively. Now, play this game in a nation, and use Macy's "critical mass" theorem to describe how many new believers one needs to effectuate a "takeover".
...
593. uclapolisci - March 13, 1999 - 6:07 PM PT
But this question still reduces to matters of causation as I began way back. Do we assign cause to the fact that some messiah came to the gate last Thursday? Or would we care to explicate a few more conditions under which our critical mass was reached coincident with other factors that led to a takeover?
Granted, I probably included some private leaps of logic into my text above, but you will point them out to me. Until then... and when you call me chickenshit you'd better be grinning.
-JWE
594. uzmakk - March 13, 1999 - 7:49 PM PT
UCLAPOLSCI:
Nonsense, polsci, now that you are here you will first grow used to the stench, then begin to like it, and finally realize that there is no stench at all. But enough of this.
First of all, the references we give eachother on the Fray are complete enough to be of immediate use to the recipient: author, title, Journal in which the paper can be found, etc. I am no polisci student. How am I to go about finding Axelrod and Cohen? An accurate little reading list would be nice if you think it would be helpful.
Frankly, the jumble with which you have arrived sounds like the kind of thing that appeals to me. Stick around for a while. Have more to say,but it is getting late and I am having trouble keeping it together.
A nation can be said to have boundaries in as much as bombs falling within said boundaries can be said to be falling on or within a nation.
595. uclapolisci - March 13, 1999 - 8:17 PM PT
Uzmakk! I understand you may be sleeping, and that's as it should be, but I'll write back anyway and who knows when you'll get this... While national boundaries are indeed useful when the topic of conversation turns to "who got bombed" - and we're not talking about the typical Churchillian Tuesday morning at Pseudo's house, for instance - the problem of defining a nation is becoming something of a hot topic in political science circles these days. Take some sub-Saharan pseudo-nations as cases in point. Except for the fact that they do have boundaries, what other features of nationhood do we attribute to them? That's not a rhetorical question... One people? No. One language? No. A shared political culture? No. The list goes on. Yugoslavia... where are the boundaries there? You see the problem. Maybe a nation is defined as something that hasn't yet fallen apart... a joke!
I forget where it was published, but the citation for Axelrod/Cohen is "The Emergence of Social Organization in the Prisoners' Dilemma: How Context-Preservation and Other Factors Promote Cooperation", Michael Cohen, Rick Riolo, and Robert Axelrod, Uni. of MI, 1998. They're probably willing to beam you a copy of your own (mdc, or rlriolo, or axe@umich.edu). Sorry about the JSTOR thing... my department pays for my subscription. I could e-mail you .pdf's of any articles I cite, but you'd have to disclose an e-mail address for that to happen obviously, and I would worry about spammers, too.
-JWE
596. Slackjaw - March 13, 1999 - 9:07 PM PT
Oh my.
What else do I work on besides formal theory? Information economics, implementation theory, experimental methods, behavioral game theory. In political science, substantive areas at the moment revolve around legislative/bureaucratic interaction.
'One can consider the interaction of ideologies to be reasonably captured by the dynamic of the prisoner's dilemma, and so model defection and cooperation to mean "preserving belief" or "changing belief", respectively.'
I'm a little slow maybe, but why prisoners' dilemma? (I realize that if you are Axelrod this is a case of everything looking like a nail.) And why is this issue best examined computationally? And what again is the goal of this analysis? To characterize the number of cooperators necessary to sustain cooperation in an Axelrodian simulation?
Uzmakk of the Steppe:
'Q: "Is it useful to conceive societal mechanisms in terms of cybernetics and information theory?"' No 1000x. An individual is not a Bernoulli process. People have goals and can use information to pursue them. E.g., if a public project is under consideration and we want to know the sum total of individual benefits from them, asking the individuals to announce their valuations and modeling information transmission cybernetically misses a very important element: free riding.
597. uzmakk - March 14, 1999 - 7:46 AM PT
Slackjaw:
Straighten me out and pull me to the next level, buddy!
598. uzmakk - March 14, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
Free riding?
599. uzmakk - March 14, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
Slackjaw:
Do you know what Stafford Beer and the boys were doing in Chile under Allende? I saw that he has a 1995? version of Platform for Change. Speak, Slackjaw.
Polsci: I have had a spam -free existence up to this point and intend to keep it that way. We shall work something out if it becomes necessary.
600. uclapolisci - March 14, 1999 - 8:24 AM PT
Uzmakk, a very wise man, indeed, who keeps his life free of spam. I respect that. I'm rebuilding my UCLA web site right now. Maybe I'll stick a .pdf download section in there to help with our games here.
Slack (yeah, it's been a busy few days, eh?), I agree with that "nail syndrome", but it's just a matter of finding an interaction algorithm. I'll jump ahead though and tell you my evolving problem, which is how to change the value of payoffs throughout the game to signal the invasion of new normative structures - or, people changing their minds on what's valuable. It's also a matter of "other recognition". There's some players that other players simply won't play with, and in fact prefer to kill (in the real world - games tend to be a bit peacenik).
The computational method is so valuable precisely because we're trying to play iterated games, and a very large number of them at that. I am not interested as much in finding out equilibria in a one game setting as I am in finding out what happens when many different players play against each other repeatedly over time. The different players are differentiated by their varying strategies (TIT FOR TAT, or ALL-COOPERATE, or ALL-DEFECT, etc.).
...